What
do eastern mysticism and fighting styles have to do with Barack Obama?
I submit that the "Obama way of politics" bears many similarities to
aikido.
Obama's signature political style is to build the largest possible coalition -- a coalition often including some of his ostensible opponents -- in order to make his goals more achievable:
I want to push the envelope but make sure I have enough folks with me that I'm not rendered politically impotent.
This attempt to appeal to a broad public is sometimes mistaken by
highly partisan progressives (a description which has been known to be
applicable to myself, at times) for either weakness, or a lack of
principles. We have seen far too many Democrats who are unsure of what
they stand for, and/or are easily intimidated by Republican bullying
and manipulation.
Hearing Obama talk about reaching out to Republicans naturally makes
many of us fear that he's another spineless, rudderless DLC Democrat.
But if you pay attention to how he works, you start to notice that
this description really doesn't apply. As I wrote previously:
Something important to note about his work with Republicans: It is
not the all-too-familiar DLC model of endless triangulation and
surrender. Instead, Obama seems to form working relationships on
particular issues with Republicans who hold moderate views (at least on
the issue in question). In other words, he builds issue-specific
coalitions across the aisle, rather than selling our party out in the
name of "compromise". If anyone should be mad about this, it's the GOP
-- because he seems to be very good at peeling off the moderates from
the hard-core conservatives!
Obama's style is to harness external forces -- including the energy of his opponents -- and redirect those forces toward his goals, instead of directly and confrontationally attempting to use blunt force.
Below are three diverse examples.
Obama is generally confident in his views, yet not overtly
combative. Again, having seen too many wimpy Dems afraid of their own
shadows, we may easily mistake a lack of fiery rhetoric for weakness.
But while not aggressive in his presentation, Obama rarely backs down
from a position once he's staked it out. Consider the brouhaha
last summer after he said that we should be willing to talk to our
enemies without preconditions. The "foreign policy establishment"
ridiculed him as hopelessly naive... but he stuck to his guns.
And gradually people started giving his position a fair hearing.
Now Hillary Clinton is co-opting some of his rhetoric about the need
for diplomacy (while still trying, with little success, to suggest that
his openness to dialogue is a mistake).
From where I sit, Obama's willingness to engage in unconditional dialogue with our enemies is one form of controlling aggression without inflicting injury -- in aikido terms, the Art of Peace. And his continued, quiet certainty about this viewpoint -- which has increasingly become part of the conventional wisdom
-- demonstrates that he can effectively withstand and counter political
attacks without either backing down or becoming an aggressor himself.
Now let's look at another recent situation from the primary
campaign. Last month, Obama was faced with a barrage of sharp and, in
some cases, racially tinged comments from Bill Clinton and other
surrogates for Hillary. But at a certain point, the wind suddenly
seemed to shift, and the role of Bill Clinton in his wife's campaign
became the focus of public scrutiny.
I see two moves by Obama himself as being key in helping to cause
this shift. First, of course, he directly brought up the subject of
Bill's role during the South Carolina debate. But he also did
something more subtle, when he made this comment:
I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.
Obama's remarks about Reagan and the Republican party (which, again,
he has politely but firmly refused to back down from) contained an
allusion to Bill Clinton that looked almost like a throwaway line. I
contend that it was very much an intentional provocation aimed at the
Clintons -- and it worked exactly as Obama intended.
Both Clintons came out swinging against Obama's comments:
Hillary Clinton: "My leading opponent the other day said that he
thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to
15 years. That's not the way I remember the last 10 to 15 years." ...
Bill Clinton, speaking of his wife: "Her principal opponent said
that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas. I can't
imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the
party of new ideas for the last 15 years. But it sounded good in Reno,
I guess.... So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who
thinks our ideas are better or the Republicans had all the good ideas."
Given that Obama's remarks were actually far more benign than the
caricatured versions presented by the Clintons, Bill and Hill came off
looking petty, extreme, and hypocritical, enforcing a shrill and self-serving political orthodoxy.
Since that final moment of overreach, attack dog Bill has been pretty much kept on a leash. Obama understood the rhythm and intent of his attacker, and found the optimal position and timing to apply a counter-technique. Touché.
My final observation about Obama's style of political aikido concerns the issue of health care mandates.
There's been much ruckus about the fact that the Obama health care
plan doesn't seem to mandate that people carry health insurance, while
Clinton's plan does. Upon close examination, the difference between
the plans may be less than meets the eye:
Take a closer look and even the candidates' positions on mandates
aren't all that different. John Edwards has proposed to automatically
enroll people in health insurance on their tax returns, but has said
this mandate won't apply until premiums are affordable. Hillary Clinton
says she favors mandates, but isn't sure there should be a penalty for
noncompliance. Barack Obama favors an immediate mandate for children,
but doesn't include one for adults. He says he's willing to
revisit the issue after making health insurance more affordable and
enrollment easier, and is also considering an automatic enrollment with
an opt-out for those who don't want to be included.
As a practical matter, the difference between Sen. Clinton's and
Sen. Obama's approaches come down to timing and sequencing. Mrs.
Clinton wants a mandate first, believing that enrolling the younger and
healthier will help reduce costs for everyone else. Mr. Obama thinks
forcing people to buy health insurance before it's affordable isn't
realistic. He wants to lower health costs first, and is willing to consider a mandate only if necessary.
Robert Reich's analysis makes sense to me -- mandating the purchase
of insurance if it's not affordable is putting the cart before the
horse. But I suspect there's another reason that Obama has chosen not
to emphasize mandates in his plan.
He has said that he'd be willing to eventually try mandates if
young, healthy adults aren't signing up for his system in sufficient
numbers to make the cost structure work. And let's be honest: the cost
structure probably won't work nearly as well without a large portion of those folks in the risk pool.
But firstly, we don't actually know
if health insurance mandates really can bring about universal coverage.
Secondly, do you remember the years of Republican demagoguery on the
"death tax"? Only a tiny minority of the wealthiest Americans ever
actually pay the estate tax. Yet millions more have been falsely
scared into thinking that it might affect them.
Even if most Americans would not be subject to mandates -- because
they'd already have health care, or would voluntarily enroll in it once
it was available and affordable -- opponents of the plan could easily
create fear, uncertainty and doubt over this issue, and torpedo the
entire initiative.
Obama's approach is to instead move most of the country into the new
health care system as painlessly as possible, with carrots rather than
sticks. Only then, when the majority of the public is on
board and sees that it's nothing to be afraid of, will he -- if
necessary -- apply pressure to the minority of holdouts.
And most likely, much of the public and the punditocracy will be
behind him -- in fact, they may be clamoring for a mandate by that
time. When, say, 85% of the public is already inside the Obama system,
there will be plenty of support for getting the other 15% into it. He
will have the optimal position and timing to make truly universal health care happen -- and the insurance companies, HMOs, and Big Pharma will not be able to stop it.
This, at least, is my read of Obama's approach to the issue.
Perhaps my extended aikido metaphor is a stretch. Perhaps I'm
totally over-idealizing Obama's strategic brilliance. But I do see in
him an ability to skillfully harness external forces, instead of
attempting to push through change on his own, that defines his style,
and that makes him a unique political figure at this juncture in
American history.
(Disclaimer: I dabbled in martial arts a bit in college, but not
specifically aikido. I am only familiar with aikido on a philosophical
level, but I find its principles appealing.)
Have a great Super Tuesday! VOTE HOPE!
